Stila Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadows Reviews & Swatches (Part 1)
Spiritual
Stila Spiritual Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow ($24.00 for 0.15 oz.) is a pale, white gold with flecks of gold sparkle. This was one of the very few shades in the range that seemed to have any “shift” whatsoever, and it shifted from cooler white to warm, yellowish white. It had sheer coverage (sort of buildable to medium coverage), did not build up, applied unevenly, dried down to a chunky, skin texture-emphasizing garbage of an eyeshadow. My eyes were reddened after five hours of wear due to the product flaking away and leaving me with patches of skin appearing.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Pat McGrath Astral Luna Gold (PiP, $25.00) is more shimmery, darker, warmer (90% similar).
- NABLA Cosmetics Honey Drip (PiP, ) is more shimmery, warmer (95% similar).
- Anastasia A1 (Norvina Vol. 4) (LE, $12.00) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- ColourPop I Sea U (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, warmer (90% similar).
- Makeup Geek Light Year (P, $12.00) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- NABLA Cosmetics Lucid Dream (PiP, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- KVD Beauty Absolution (LE, ) is less shimmery, more pigmented, warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop Protocol (LE, $9.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Fenty Beauty Oh-Zone (LE, ) is more shimmery, more pigmented (90% similar).
- ColourPop Cheep Cheep (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$24.00/0.15 oz. - $160.00 Per Ounce
Per the brand, it's supposed to be a "magically-transformative liquid eyeshadow" that has "color-flip pigments" that give it a "unique, color-changing, megawatt finish." It is supposed to be "long-wearing" with "minimal fallout." There's no specific callout about coverage level, but the brand's swatches shown fairly pigmented skin swatches and then opaque coverage on their model eye swatches.
A lot of the shades had a translucent, almost sooty black base, which resulted in them not working well to brighten, which often glittery products like these would be used for--and the sheerness of them made them even more likely to be used to pop on top of other shades or used in the inner tearduct to add extra oomph. They were very watery, and some shades require more "mixing" prior to application (which was hard to do on the applicator, so a separate brush would be best) or else they go on unevenly. I did not detect "color-flip" or shift with the majority of shades; they were sparkly, glittery, and/or metallic, so they had some shine and twinkle, but shift? Not so much.
They were very sheer, and they did not build up well, regardless of whether I used the included applicator, separate brush, or fingertips, and I always made to sure to let it dry down fully prior to doing so. The product was wet enough for long enough that it had a tendency to get into creases and fine lines, which yielded a patchier, more uneven application than intended. I don't know what purpose these are serving in Stila's line except to make me question future quality of these types of products, as their Glitter & Glows are very, very similar but tend to be much better performing.
Browse all of our Stila Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Water, Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate, Alcohol Denat., Silica, Mica (Ci 77019), Glycerin, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Hydroxyethyl Acrylate/Sodium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Squalane, Phenoxyethanol, Tin Oxide, Caprylyl Glycol, Triethoxycaprylylsilane, Polysorbate 60, Hexylene Glycol, Sorbitan Isostearate, Carbomer, Triethanolamine. May Contain (+/-): Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Iron Oxides (Ci 77491).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Spiritual
LELimited Edition. $24.00.
Charmed
Stila Charmed Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow ($24.00 for 0.15 oz.) is a bright, medium-dark berry with cool undertones and flecks of silver and pink glitter. It had semi-opaque pigmentation in a single layer, and it seemed to have finer shimmer along with a more moderate helping of glitter, so it did not go on as terribly as other shades. It was the “best” of what’s turning out to be a very dismal effort by Stila. That being said, the initial application was promising, but once it dried down, it separated along my skin’s natural texture and looked uneven, patchy, and chunky–like my lower lash line looked shriveled. It lasted for six hours before it started to flake off my skin.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Bare Minimum (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, cooler (95% similar).
- Natasha Denona Razzle Dazzle (360SM) (LE, $29.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Cupid (PiP, $6.25) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Pug Life (LE, $6.00) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Elizabeth (Deep) (PiP, $6.25) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Huda Beauty Amethyst #2 (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop Treasure Box (PiP, $4.50) is cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Like Literally (PiP, $4.50) is less shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- UOMA Beauty Royal Bloodline (LE, ) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop 405 (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, lighter, cooler (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$24.00/0.15 oz. - $160.00 Per Ounce
Per the brand, it's supposed to be a "magically-transformative liquid eyeshadow" that has "color-flip pigments" that give it a "unique, color-changing, megawatt finish." It is supposed to be "long-wearing" with "minimal fallout." There's no specific callout about coverage level, but the brand's swatches shown fairly pigmented skin swatches and then opaque coverage on their model eye swatches.
A lot of the shades had a translucent, almost sooty black base, which resulted in them not working well to brighten, which often glittery products like these would be used for--and the sheerness of them made them even more likely to be used to pop on top of other shades or used in the inner tearduct to add extra oomph. They were very watery, and some shades require more "mixing" prior to application (which was hard to do on the applicator, so a separate brush would be best) or else they go on unevenly. I did not detect "color-flip" or shift with the majority of shades; they were sparkly, glittery, and/or metallic, so they had some shine and twinkle, but shift? Not so much.
They were very sheer, and they did not build up well, regardless of whether I used the included applicator, separate brush, or fingertips, and I always made to sure to let it dry down fully prior to doing so. The product was wet enough for long enough that it had a tendency to get into creases and fine lines, which yielded a patchier, more uneven application than intended. I don't know what purpose these are serving in Stila's line except to make me question future quality of these types of products, as their Glitter & Glows are very, very similar but tend to be much better performing.
Browse all of our Stila Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Water, Calcium Sodium Borosilicate, Alcohol Denat., Silica, Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate, Glycerin, Mica (Ci 77019), Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Hydroxyethyl Acrylate/Sodium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Squalane, Phenoxyethanol, Tin Oxide, Caprylyl Glycol, Polysorbate 60, Triethoxycaprylylsilane, Hexylene Glycol, Sorbitan Isostearate, Carbomer, Triethanolamine. May Contain (+/-): Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Iron Oxides (Ci 77491).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Charmed
LELimited Edition. $24.00.
Hypnotic
Stila Hypnotic Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow ($24.00 for 0.15 oz.) has a translucent, blackened plum based with lighter purple glitter. It had sheer coverage, which applied unevenly, looked patchy regardless of how much I fussed with it or what tool I tried to apply it with. If I piled on the product initially to get more “coverage,” then the product would slowly but surely migrate and pull away at any fine lines/creases as it dried down due to a very, very watery texture. The dry down emphasized my skin texture and made it look chunky along my lower lash line. It started to fall away in chunks within six hours of wear.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- MAC Midnight Shine (P, $18.00) is more shimmery, darker, more pigmented (90% similar).
- ColourPop For Keeps (PiP, $4.50) is more pigmented, warmer (90% similar).
- Lisa Eldridge Viola (P, $27.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Fenty Beauty Space Owt (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter, more pigmented (90% similar).
- MAC Nippy's Crease (LE, $17.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Huda Beauty Ruby #6 (LE, ) is more shimmery, more pigmented (90% similar).
- Stila Plum On (P, $24.00) is warmer (85% similar).
- ColourPop Wittle (P, $6.00) is less shimmery, brighter (85% similar).
- Dior Olympe (871) (LE, $31.00) is less shimmery, more pigmented (85% similar).
- ColourPop Something Special (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, more pigmented, warmer (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$24.00/0.15 oz. - $160.00 Per Ounce
Per the brand, it's supposed to be a "magically-transformative liquid eyeshadow" that has "color-flip pigments" that give it a "unique, color-changing, megawatt finish." It is supposed to be "long-wearing" with "minimal fallout." There's no specific callout about coverage level, but the brand's swatches shown fairly pigmented skin swatches and then opaque coverage on their model eye swatches.
A lot of the shades had a translucent, almost sooty black base, which resulted in them not working well to brighten, which often glittery products like these would be used for--and the sheerness of them made them even more likely to be used to pop on top of other shades or used in the inner tearduct to add extra oomph. They were very watery, and some shades require more "mixing" prior to application (which was hard to do on the applicator, so a separate brush would be best) or else they go on unevenly. I did not detect "color-flip" or shift with the majority of shades; they were sparkly, glittery, and/or metallic, so they had some shine and twinkle, but shift? Not so much.
They were very sheer, and they did not build up well, regardless of whether I used the included applicator, separate brush, or fingertips, and I always made to sure to let it dry down fully prior to doing so. The product was wet enough for long enough that it had a tendency to get into creases and fine lines, which yielded a patchier, more uneven application than intended. I don't know what purpose these are serving in Stila's line except to make me question future quality of these types of products, as their Glitter & Glows are very, very similar but tend to be much better performing.
Browse all of our Stila Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Water, Calcium Sodium Borosilicate, Alcohol Denat., Silica, Glycerin, Hydroxyethyl Acrylate/Sodium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Squalane, Phenoxyethanol, Tin Oxide, Caprylyl Glycol, Polysorbate 60, Hexylene Glycol, Sorbitan Isostearate, Carbomer, Triethanolamine. May Contain (+/-): Black 2 (Ci 77266) (Nano), Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Iron Oxides (Ci 77491).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Hypnotic
LELimited Edition. $24.00.
Enigmatic
Stila Enigmatic Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow ($24.00 for 0.15 oz.) is a muted, medium-dark purple with subtle, cool undertones and flecks of lighter purple glitter. It had more of an iridescent finish than anything that shifted or “flipped.” It had sheer, uneven, and patchy coverage when applied with fingertips, the included applicator, or a brush, though I had the “best” results with a brush, as that enabled me to spread the color around without most of it adhering to my fingertip or over-applying when using the included applicator. It migrated into fine lines and moved slightly as it dried down, which created a chunky, uneven texture overall. My eyes started watering nonstop after six hours of wear, as there was too much migration and fallout to work through it.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Stila G*psy (P, $24.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- NABLA Cosmetics Selfish (P, $12.00) is darker, more pigmented, cooler (90% similar).
- Stila Into the Blue (LE, $24.00) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever 103 Pink White (P, $26.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- NARS Chile (P, $22.00) is more shimmery, more pigmented, warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Silver Burn (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, more pigmented, warmer (90% similar).
- Anastasia OA (LE, $12.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Dream On (LE, $19.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Make Up For Ever Reflection (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- ColourPop Sunbeam (LE, $6.00) is less shimmery, lighter, more pigmented (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$24.00/0.15 oz. - $160.00 Per Ounce
Per the brand, it's supposed to be a "magically-transformative liquid eyeshadow" that has "color-flip pigments" that give it a "unique, color-changing, megawatt finish." It is supposed to be "long-wearing" with "minimal fallout." There's no specific callout about coverage level, but the brand's swatches shown fairly pigmented skin swatches and then opaque coverage on their model eye swatches.
A lot of the shades had a translucent, almost sooty black base, which resulted in them not working well to brighten, which often glittery products like these would be used for--and the sheerness of them made them even more likely to be used to pop on top of other shades or used in the inner tearduct to add extra oomph. They were very watery, and some shades require more "mixing" prior to application (which was hard to do on the applicator, so a separate brush would be best) or else they go on unevenly. I did not detect "color-flip" or shift with the majority of shades; they were sparkly, glittery, and/or metallic, so they had some shine and twinkle, but shift? Not so much.
They were very sheer, and they did not build up well, regardless of whether I used the included applicator, separate brush, or fingertips, and I always made to sure to let it dry down fully prior to doing so. The product was wet enough for long enough that it had a tendency to get into creases and fine lines, which yielded a patchier, more uneven application than intended. I don't know what purpose these are serving in Stila's line except to make me question future quality of these types of products, as their Glitter & Glows are very, very similar but tend to be much better performing.
Browse all of our Stila Shade Mystere Liquid Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Water, Calcium Sodium Borosilicate, Alcohol Denat., Glycerin, Silica, Hydroxyethyl Acrylate/Sodium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Squalane, Phenoxyethanol, Tin Oxide, Caprylyl Glycol, Polysorbate 60, Hexylene Glycol, Sorbitan Isostearate, Carbomer, Triethanolamine. May Contain (+/-): Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Black 2 (Ci 77266) (Nano).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
OMG – how awful for you Christine – what a lot of money down the drain for such a dismal set of products. Stila can do much better than this.
“…skin texture-emphasizing garbage of an eyeshadow.” The way that I cackled at this line. You have such a way with words. I could feel your frustration through my screen. I hate that this went so badly and that all of them seemed to cause you eye irritation. You really are doing the Lord’s work.
I literally read that line to my husband out of delight.
Lol. I know, right. I had to reread to be sure I read right. All I’m thinking is ” tell us how you really feel Christine” . Hahahahahaha.
These sound like they were a miserable experience for you. Thank you for taking the bullet for the rest of us. I likely would have picked up a couple as I like the other Stila e/s toppers. Glad I waited for your review.
They started so well on the liquid shadows. Even the shimmer and glow are so lovely. But recently I got a 3 pack with limited shades and those were horrid too. Had to apply a bit of eye drops to make it work. These terrible formulas are going to ruin their reputation.
I’ve not seen any decent reviews of this product. Stila missed big time.
Bullet dodged. I almost spent money on these. Yikes.
My beauty budget for this month thanks you for these reviews, because I love me some sparkles and find them hard to resist. But resist I will. Easily.
Oh dear. 🙁
I like the Glitter & Glow shadows just fine so it’s such a shame that Stila have gone for something gimmicky that looks new and interesting but is actually just a pile of hot garbage, as you said.
I’d say texture emphasizing garbage sums it up perfectly.
I want to say that these are shockingly bad, but after the debacle of the promo pictures… I’m not shocked, just disappointed. For shame, Stila!
I guess we see why they didn’t do real swatches on real people.
This is all so laughably _bad_. Where did Stila’s QA department go?
I’m not big on liquid eye shadow (thanks oily lids), but now I am steering far clear of this new offering.
Wow. It’s only January 3rd and we already have solid entry for “Most Disappointing Product of 2019”
Oh Nooooooo.. only part one ?
I’ve always struggled with Stila’s other liquid e/s’s so these were not on my radar… thankfully.
Those are a cakewalk compared to these!
I was concerned about the quality of this product so thanks for saving me the trouble of buying, trying and returning these.
Ugh…these sound perfectly awful. I’m sorry you had to go through watery eyes and such expense to have these be duds. I really like the color of Enigmatic, but it seems to be the worst of the bunch. “Garbage” is the perfect word.
i wonder if these are like the little white lies shades Stila released for Ulta? i havent seen those yet but i did see these at Sephora this past weekend and thought “meh”.
I think, based on the descriptions, those are almost the opposite – a white/translucent base, so some of the issues wouldn’t be present (not sure about the wear) – though I opted not to purchase from that launch so I’m not sure.
I have the little white lies and they are great. I knew these would be terrible from how they looked in the container and so far I have been correct.
Thank you for saving us from buying garbage. Christine should be a patron saint of the makeup community.
So glad you gave these bad marks. I bought Enigmatic and and Hypnotic and was very disappointed by both.
I really want all of these! I’ve never once had anything flake on me, even when most people say they had an issue.
You’re rather a hero for testing these products so we don’t have to go through same. These sound actually unsafe, in terms of damaging eyelids. Thanks for all you do.
Sorry that you have to leave these on for wear testing. Must have been excruciating. Little White Lies, then these? Where is Jeanne Lobell, when you need her? She must have a major case of Schadenfreude right about now. Two sets of total losers in a row. But following some decent/good liquid e/s, that were widely admired? Have to admit, don’t quite understand how Stila could have gone so wrong. Innovation gone awry? Sad, actually. Hope we’ve seen the worst of the year, but by Jan 3? Wtf?
Wow that’s pretty awful. I feel bad about your eyes–be sure to nurse them back to health!
Looking at how red and irritated your eye looks from these “garbage” eyeshadows actually made my own eyes hurt and tear! Isn’t it weird how seeing someone else’s pain can have us feeling it, too?
These totally SUCK. Not sure what Stila is thinking recently, but perhaps they’re *not* thinking at all.
As soon as I seen these advertised I honestly thought to myself these are going to be a patchy mess. Stila should have just stuck to expanding the shade range of the original glitter and glow products.
Stila used to have some wonderful products which they got rid of in a very unwise move (their single eyeshadows were so excellent). In their attempts to be “cutting edge” and “innovative”, they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. There is very little that I buy from this brand any more. It’s alarming that they’d send to market a line of products as bad as these – shadows falling off in large chunks and peeling away. UGH!
This is bad!
I don’t understand… somebody had to test it before throwing it on the market right? I’m so sorry for your eye irritation. You must have pretty resilient skin while testing so many products all the time, so that’s nuf said.
I do like the shimmer and glow from Styla (esp. when doing a cut crease). And the “normal” glitter and glow give an instant glam when you don’t have the time to doll up.
I like the Shimmer/Glitter & Glows for the most part, too – even the sheerer ones still serve a purpose if you’re just looking for something to layer on top of another shade), and they wear a lot better on me typically! It might have worked better if they released a black base to coordinate – almost like a double-ended version where one was more of a pearly, opaque black (or deeper) base (like the Shimmer & Glow) with the other side being a tinted (to match the Shimmer & Glow end) with sparkle.
When I first saw these, I thought they were beautiful. This is sad, where is their quality control? They’re just trying to push these onto their unsuspecting customers who are loyal to their glitter and glow formula, when they clearly are nowhere near as good. Thank you for your review, Christine, I almost bought these!
Yeah, the Glitter & Glows feel like a “hero product” for the brand, so they seem like they’re trying to capitalize on it but have made some missteps (they did a very chunky/glittery liquid take for cheeks that didn’t seem to resonate well with customers as well).
Well, so much for my interest in these! When I first saw the press release I thought, “Oooh, what an interesting idea and what pretty colours. But I should wait for Temptalia’s review, shouldn’t I? Yes, I should.” So I’m glad I waited, but I’m sorry you had such a miserable experience. Honestly, what excuse could Stila possibly have for producing such an awful product?? Christine, they should give you your money back and buy you a nice dinner or something 😉 Again, THANK YOU for your excellent and honest review; you have once again saved us all a lot of time and money! XO
Well, this is a sucky way to start off the new year, Stila. 🙁
I hope you know, I think we will all understand if there is no Part 2 to follow this painful Part 1. Give those pretty eyes a rest! I’m sorry you had to go through this. Wishing you happier testing days ahead.
I’m going to need you to stop making garbage products look beautiful on you, lol.
Technical opinion:
Looking at the ingredients I can clearly see why they were such an uncomfortable mess. Stila has used a quick-drying formula heavy on powders, synthetic lightweight emollients, preservatives, and alcohol; meanwhile there’s nothing added to combat the serious risk of skin irritation. Glycerin, while a sufficient moisturizer and humectant at small amounts, can also be a cause of dryness/irritation when used too heavily in a formula like this. Considering it’s the fourth ingredient, right behind denatured alcohol (ethanol processed for personal care applications), it’s one of the main components and is likely drying your skin out; not at the surface, but several layers down into the dermis where you need it most for proper cellular health and regeneration. Add that to the litany of preservatives and obviously heavy dose of alcohol, and it’s no wonder these were literally a painful experience.
Here’s my biggest concern: this brand is asking you to use an incredibly drying, unforgiving formula that carries a significant risk of irritation on one of the most sensitive and delicate areas of your body: your eyes. They’ve used no conditioning, moisturizing, anti-inflammatory, OR otherwise soothing ingredients to help replenish what this product saps out from you. Considering the absolute debacle that accompanied the promotional images for these products, it’s evident that they put no real concern or effort into the product from a consumer standpoint.
Personal opinion:
This product was developed to make money off of a pervasive trend; period. This is a blatant instance of a brand giving their customers the middle finger and expecting them to be okay with it. Well I, for one, am NOT okay with it. There are more educated consumers than ever before and brands like Stila need to realize that fact; otherwise they may go belly-up once more!
I’mma jump off my soap box now (lol). Thank you for always being up-front and honest with your readers; it’s why you’re the best at what you do. You’re ‘The Wolverine of Beauty Bloggers’ in my book!
I’m curious if you feel the same way about their other liquid eyeshadows – like the Glitter & Glows – because while some of those are harder to apply, a lot of them work well for how I expect most people want to use them (as toppers, brightening the inner tearduct, all-over the lid).
I was very surprised there was as much fallout – that’s the part that caught me unaware – as the other variations of the formula seem to be far, far more workable.
Looking back at the original formula, it doesn’t contain any of the denatured alcohol. Since the first iteration was so popular it doesn’t make sense to change the formula, but for the effects they were going for it makes sense in theory.
My best guess is they wanted a quick-drying formula which would leave a light (but stubborn) film of color- it’s the best base for these glitter-heavy shades where you want the particles to stay where you apply them; it minimizes the likelihood of migration and fallout.
The reason it doesn’t work is because of the alcohol, along with its reaction with the Glycerin and the glitters. Glycerin pulls moisture from below the epidermis to the surface, where it’s readily evaporated with the alcohol. The longer you wear it and the warmer the product becomes as it acclimates to your body temperature, the more readily the alcohol will evaporate and take more moisture with it.
Also, since the bulk of the powders added are mineral glass glitters which don’t absorb oils there’s not much to help retain the otherwise conditioning elements of squalene (a thin and lightweight emollient typically sourced from olives) which also helps the powders adhere to skin.
From a theoretical point, the formulation of this product would eventually just leave a brittle film of glitters/color on top of dry, irritated skin and the longer you wore it the worse it would get; a conclusion you unfortunately experienced first-hand on the practical end of things.
I don’t know what they were doing, and I don’t think they knew either. They could have used a lightweight emollient with a low flash point; it would readily evaporate as it reached body temperature while actually helping to form a more stable (if not lightly nourishing) film of color/glitter. But hindsight is 20/20 and all that jazz.
This was absolutely fascinating, Andrew! Thank you so much for sharing your previous take but such a quick follow-up. I was so puzzled by just how poorly these performed compared to the originals, so it’s really cool to have an idea as to why they performed so drastically different.
This comment made my day! Thank you again!
Wow. Go chem sci geek! Thank you so much. I love understanding things like this, and have no one to explain them. Andrew, you are a total pro! If you could address my HA comment on FFH Fri, I would really appreciate it…providing Christine does not edit it out as somewhat controversial and provocative, that is.
Wow. So I think I misunderstood the description given by Stila of the eyeshadows. I thought they were all white shadows and it was strictly the shift that had color. (Not that I had any interest in putting white eyeshadow on, even with a color shift.). Wasn’t planning on getting any of these anyway, but your review sealed the deal.
I’m not used to you being so blatant with a negative description, which I found refreshing and actually funny (easy for me to be amused because I didn’t have to put garbage shadow on my eyes). Thank you for tolerating crappy products for the sake of the blog and for us!
Perhaps that’s the ones in the Little White Lies launch? These seem almost opposite (black base) but haven’t tried the ones from the previous launch!
Replying to my own comment and your reply – after submitting the first comment I realized that I had indeed confused the two products and that this is NOT the little white lies collection. I think I heard so much about little white lies that I completely missed the mystere collection. My bad. Regardless, I won’t be getting any of this collection for sure based on your reviews. No interest in white eyeshadow either, but I hope that they are better than this one!
No problem! This one just released maybe two weeks ago but think some enthusiasm got lost from the last launch’s bumbling with the imagery!
I was all over these when I first saw them.
They sold out at Sephora, and then came back in stock, and I almost jumped in.
But I found a review on YouTube that was painful; the reviewer could not make them look anything but abysmal.
Glad I waited to see your review as well.
Easy pass.
Wow I feel so alone in my love for these. I have all six and haven’t had any issues so far with them once on! I will say mystic did go on patchy, and it was hard to build up. Other than that one, all the rest went on smoothly and stayed for over eight hours without flaking off. Maybe it’s my current eye primer combo? I use a mixture of the MAC prep and prime 24-hour eye primer and their mixing medium gel (I mix them because the eye primer alone makes shadows crease on me but I need to use it up – gotta say, love the combo). I wore them to work and out without any irritation or anything. I love these!
Nope. The color of Spiritual is the only one of this bunch I could see myself reaching for, but after your notes on application and wear? Nope. Does this feel like Stila panicking to capitalize on the original glitter shadow buzz with these half thought out products?
Oh, absolutely.
“Lets put out an inferior product, but make it super pretty to look at so it fools our customers! Lets not forget to charge a silly price for good measure.” -Stila
Oof. These look cool in the bottle but I was so curious to see how they would preform. I saw a promotional image in an email for these yesterday, and they were making it look like it’s super opaque, shifty and wonderful. I remembered your swatches and I was like Hmm, not sure at all how this look is possible to achieve solely with these products… Thank you Christine! You’re doing the lord’s work.
Yeah, looking at the promo images, I have no idea either, lol!
Yikes, such a shocking review!
Many eyelids around the world thank you!
I just had to stop by to let you know how much it made me laugh when you called one of these a “garbage” eye shadow. Made my day!!!! Tell it like it is, Christine we love it!!!